Some prefer to think that the unbaptized children will depart Limbo
(which they believe will no longer exist) and go to Heaven (rather than Limbo
which is the hem of Hell and will exist for as long as Hell exists i.e.
forever) at the end of time, though Saint Thomas Aquinas clearly avoids
suggesting such a novel thought because it is an article of faith that Original
Sin prevents one from obtaining the Beatific Vision. Having had a miscarriage myself (through my wife) I understand why
they would think this way. But enjoying an eternity of perfect natural
happiness is far better than never having existed. These children do have a
good eternity which is far better than the life we endure on our pilgrimage.
The Church strongly urges the Baptism of children as shortly after birth as
possible with good reason, as an eternity of perfect natural happiness, though
satisfying and enjoyable, falls far short of the Beatific Vision. Their earthly
parents, when in Heaven, will not be saddened by this as they will be keenly in
tune with the Justice and Mercy of God, and perhaps they will foresee that had
their children lived some time past the age of reason they may have merited
eternal punishments:
Saint
Matthew Chapter Twenty-Five Verse 9: The wise answered, saying: Lest perhaps
there be not enough for us and for you, go ye rather to them that sell and buy
for yourselves. This is an
ornamental detail, as I said lending elegance to the parable, signifying that
on the day of judgment the elect will not be moved by the misery of the
reprobates, nor will they help them in anyway, indeed they will not be able to
help them, but rather will silently condemn them, because they had neglected to
use the time of this present life, given by God for good works. Saint Augustine says of these words of the prudent
virgins, “This is not the answer of persons giving advice, but of those who
deride. For they were not wise of
themselves but the wisdom in them was that of which it is written (Proverbs 1:
24) Because I called, and ye refused . . . I also will laugh at your
calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh, when that whereof ye were afraid
cometh upon you.” And as Saint
Jerome says upon this passage, “In the day of judgment no one’s virtues will be
able to give any assistance to other men’s faults.” And the Interlinear Gloss adds, “The
wise say this not out of avarice, but out of fear. For in that day the testimony of each shall
scarcely suffice for himself, much less for himself and his neighbor
also.” And again, “Now let us see what
help they will be to you, who used to sell to you their human praise.” The Interlinear Gloss quotes this from
Saint Gregory; he adds: “The sellers of oil are flatterers. For they who, when any favor has been
received, offer with their vain praises the brightness of glory, sell as it
were oil. This is the oil of which the
Psalmist says, Let not the oil of the sinner fatten (anoint) my
head.” [Psalm 140: 5]. (Lapide)
Thomistic theology on this issue will make you feel better about the
fate of unbaptized infants should you believe such an end is an injustice. For
proof that the Limbo of Children is eternal let us see what the Angelic Doctor
says:
On the contrary, Even as
temporal punishment in purgatory and eternal punishment in hell are due to
actual sin, so temporal punishment in the limbo of the Fathers and eternal
punishment in the limbo of the children were due to original sin. If,
therefore, hell and purgatory be not the same it would seem that neither are
the limbo of children and the limbo of the Fathers the same.
I answer that, The limbo of the Fathers and the limbo of
children, without any doubt, differ as to the quality of punishment or reward. For
children have no hope of the blessed life, (emphasis mine) as the
Fathers in limbo had, in whom, moreover, shone forth the light of faith and
grace. But as regards their situation, there is reason to believe that the
place of both is the same; except that the limbo of the Fathers is placed
higher than the limbo of children, just as we have stated in reference to limbo
and hell. See Article 6. Is the Limbo
of Children the Same as the Limbo of the Fathers.
When putting this together I could not help thinking of Mother Teresa
and her plight. She did a ton of natural good in her life. The sermon of this link by Father Ephrem
Cordova, CMRI, entitled "Mother
Teresa Canonized" (which speaks to all the reasons she should not
be canonized were a true Pope to consider it) helps us understand that all the
good works in the world merit nothing eternal if not done in a state of
sanctifying grace. While her life-long
devotion to works of mercy may have increased the chance that she was given the
grace to repent of any heresy she was guilty of and have a good death with a
valid Priest administering Last Rites to her, we should never count on that.
Besides, how many of us will do as much good for the poor as she did?
Let us look to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, no, not the one the
Polish anti-Pope foisted on us in 1992, but The Catechism of Trent (COT) for a
better understanding of the dogmatic subject of Hell and the moral subject of
Faith:
Dogmatic
Subject: Hell—The children of the kingdom shall be cast out into exterior
darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 8: 12)
The
children of the kingdom, i.e., those
destined and called to the kingdom as being Israelites, since they were the
progeny of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to whom and to whose seed God had promised
both the earthly kingdom of Judea, and the spiritual kingdom of eternal glory
in heaven. By a similar Hebrew idiom,
they are called children of death, of hell, of the resurrection, to whom death
or hell is threatened, or who are destined and assigned to the resurrection
promised by God.
Morally,
if you are a child of the kingdom, do the works of the kingdom; perform deeds
worthy of heaven, live like an angel.
For thus Christ said to the Jews, If you be the children of Abraham,
do the works of Abraham (John 8: 39)
Into
the exterior darkness, of
hell. Christ still keeps up the metaphor
of a feast in the kingdom of heaven, a feast, therefore, in which was abundance
of light.
And a while later:
Hence
Luke 13: 28 says, You shall see. . . yourselves thrust out. The meaning of the passage is the children of
the kingdom of the Jews, destined, for the sake of their fathers, Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, to the kingdom of heaven, on account of their unbelief, in
refusing to believe in Christ, shall be excluded from the kingdom and banquet
feast of heaven, and shall be driven into the outer darkness of hell.
Moral
Subject: The virtue of Faith—And Jesus hearing this, marveled; and said to
them that followed him: Amen I say to you, I have not found so great faith in
Israel (Matthew 8: 10).
And
Jesus hearing this, marveled,
at so much faith, humility, reverence and devotion in the centurion, who was
not a Jew, but a gentile. Hence Origen
says, “Consider how great a thing, and what sort of thing, principalities in
His sight are as shadows, or as fading flowers.
None of these things, therefore, in His sight are wonderful, as though
they were great or precious. Faith alone
is such: this He honors and admires: this He counts acceptable to Himself.”
You
will ask, could wonder really exist in Christ?
I presuppose, according to the common opinion of theologians, that in
Christ, besides that divine knowledge which He had as God, there was three-fold
knowledge, as He was man. 1. Beatific,
by which He beheld the essence of God, and in the enjoyment of which He was
blessed. 2. Infused, by which, through
the species sent into His soul by God, at the very moment of His
conception. He knew all things. 3. Experimental, by which those things which
He understood through infused knowledge, He daily saw, heard, and understood
through experience.
I
answer, therefore, that in Christ wonder did not exist properly and absolutely,
as something which flows from the depths of the heart. For wonder arises in us when we see or hear
something new, unusual or unknown. But
Christ, by means of infused knowledge, knew all things before they were
done. Since, therefore, He was
omniscient, nothing was to Him new, unknown, unexpected, or wonderful. Christ, however, stirred up in Himself, as it
were, by experimental knowledge, when He met with anything new or wonderful, a
certain superficial, as it were, interior act of wonder, and the outward
expression of that wonder, that so He might teach others to marvel at the
same. Thus Saint Augustine: “But who was
He that had created this faith in him, but only He who now marveled at it? But even had it come from any other, how
should He marvel who knew all things future?
When the Lord marvels, it is only to teach us what we ought to wonder
at; for all these emotions in Him are not signs of passion, but examples of a teacher.” So also Saint Thomas. Hence a wise man wonders at nothing. Cyrus, too, the king of Persia, taught his
subjects not to wonder that the king is more exalted and higher than any
earthly thing. Someone who, with Saint
Paul, has his conversation in heaven, wonders at nothing on earth. Very well saith Saint Cyprian, “Never will he
wonder at human works who has known himself to be a child of God. He has been cast down from the height of his
nobility, who is able to admire anything after God.”
And
said to them that followed him: Amen I say to you, I have not found so great
faith in Israel. Arabic: “in anyone from Israel”. The Greek is more forceful: “Nor in Israel
have I found so much faith”, as in the gentile centurion. When Christ says, I have not found so great
faith in Israel, you must understand Him to speak of the ordinary run of people
at the time of His preaching, for there was without doubt greater faith in the
Blessed Virgin, in Abraham and Moses, and John the Baptist, and others. Or as Saint Chrysostom interprets it, I have
not found so great faith, that is, in proportion, for this centurion was a
gentile; those were believing Israelites; hence the same faith in the former
was more wonderful and admirable than in the latter. The same Saint Chrysostom reckons the faith
of the centurion greater than the faith of Martha and Mary Magdalen. Hear Saint Chrysostom: “Andrew believed, but
it was when John said, Behold the Lamb of God. Peter believed, but it was when Andrew
had told him the good news. Philip
believed, but by reading the scriptures.
And Nathanael first received a sign of Christ’s divinity, and then
offered the profession of his faith.”
Hear likewise Origen: “Jairus, a prince of Israel, asking in behalf of
his daughter, said not, “Say in a word”, but “Come quickly”. Nicodemus, when he heard of the sacrament of
faith, answered, “How can these things be?”
Martha and Mary said, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had
not died, as though doubting that the power of God is everywhere present.”
Some protestants are loath to admit that you can believe in Jesus and
still end up in Hell forever. The Gospel
of Saint Mathew chapters five through seven, and much else from scripture,
prove this wish false. The beloved Catechism
of Trent (COT) has this snippet on Hell:
DIFFERENT ABODES CALLED “HELL”
These
abodes are not all of the same nature, for among them is that most loathsome
and dark prison in which the souls of the damned are tormented with the unclean
spirits in eternal and inextinguishable fire. This place is called gehenna, the
bottomless pit, and is hell strictly so-called. (Underlines mine)
Many who refer to themselves as Catholics also seem to have a protestant
mentality of Hell as well, at least regarding their actions. They live in habitual mortal sin and seem to
have the least care in the world when it comes to their eternal fate. After all, they wear the brown scapular. Right?
They form habitual mortal sins, perhaps before realizing it is a mortal
sin and then can’t give it up, so they convince themselves that it is nothing
to worry about. “Our Lady will certainly
take care of me on my death bed.”, they reassure themselves. But as the
following link shows, the brown scapular is not a
good luck charm, it must be worn devoutly. It is not a “get out of jail free” card. The Just and Merciful God does not allow us
to “get away” with sin. We are punished
for all our sins in this and or the next life.
Temporarily and or eternally. We
can have a deeper faith than Saint Paul had during his last years and burn
eternally. I talked to an older person
who was raised in the Church before Vatican “2” (V2) and she told me she
believed the good she did would outweigh her mortal sins and she would be
saved. She somehow believed one could
die with mortal sin on her soul and still be saved so long as she did more good than evil.
This was not a person that lacked intelligence. She slowly got brainwashed after V2 until she
lost the faith it seems to me. We more
readily believe what we prefer to believe than the truth quite often, but where
does that get us in the end? Let us look
to the all-encompassing Summa for the answer:
On the contrary, It is written (1 Corinthians 6:9-10): "Neither fornicators
. . . nor adulterers," etc. "shall possess the kingdom of God." Yet many are such who practice works of mercy. Therefore the merciful will not all come to the eternal kingdom: and consequently some of them will be punished eternally.
Further, it is written (James 2:10): "Whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all." Therefore
whoever keeps the law as regards the works of mercy and omits other works, is guilty of transgressing the law, and consequently will be punished eternally.
I answer that, As Augustine says in the book quoted above (De Civ. Dei xxi,
22), some have maintained that not all who have professed the Catholic faith will be freed from eternal
punishment, but only those who persevere in works of mercy, although they be guilty of other crimes. But this cannot stand,
because without charity nothing can be acceptable to God, nor does anything profit unto eternal life in the absence of charity. Now it happens that certain persons persevere in works of mercy without having charity. Wherefore nothing profits them to the meriting of eternal life, or to exemption from eternal
punishment, as may be gathered from 1 Corinthians 13:3. Most evident is this in the
case of those who lay hands on other people's property, for after seizing
on many things, they nevertheless spend something in works of mercy. We must therefore conclude that all whosoever die in mortal sin, neither faith nor works of mercy will free them from eternal
punishment, not even after any length of time whatever.
[Supplement, Question 99, Article 5]
As we can
see towards the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Hell is a distinct possibility
for many who claim to believe in, love, and even work miracles in the name of
Jesus:
And then will I
profess unto them: I never knew you: depart from Me, you that work iniquity.
(Saint Matthew, chapter 7, verse 23)
See the Haydock commentary below:
So as to approve
and reward your works. Here he shews that even prophecy and miracles will not
save us without good works. (Menochius) --- How much less will faith,
unassisted by good works, preserve us from condemnation. (Haydock) --- The gift
of miracles is bestowed on men not for their own good, but for the advantage of
others. We must not then be surprised if men, who had indeed faith in Christ,
but whose lives did not correspond with their faith, should be honoured with
these extraordinary gifts, since the Almighty sometimes employs as his
instruments in working similar wonders, men destitute both of faith and virtue.
Balaam, void of faith and probity [virtue – J.G.], still by the will of God,
prophesied for the advantage of others. To Pharao and Nabuchodonosor were
revealed future events of the greatest moment; and the wicked Judas himself
cast out devils. Therefore St. Paul said, "if I had all faith so as to
remove mountains, and if I knew all mysteries, and was possessed of all wisdom,
but had not charity, I am nothing." (St. John Chrysostom)
Below is a commentary of the Church Fathers which Saint Thomas put
together in his Catena Aurea which should help solidify or reinforce our
orthodoxy on this topic:
Jerome: As He had
said above that those who have the robe of a good life are yet not to be
received because of the impiety of their doctrines; so now on the other hand,
He forbids us to participate in faith with those who while they are strong in
sound doctrine, destroy it with evil works. For it behooves the servants of God
that both their work should be approved by their teaching and their teaching by
their works.
And therefore He
says, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, enters into the
kingdom of Heaven."
St. John
Chrysostom: Wherein He seems to touch the Jews chiefly who placed every thing
in dogmas; as Paul accuses them, "If thou art called a Jew, and restest
[rest] in the Law."
Pseudo-Chrysostom:
Otherwise; Having taught that the false prophets and the true are to be
discerned by their fruits, He now goes on to teach more plainly what are the
fruits by which we are to discern the godly from the ungodly teachers.
St. Augustine:
For even in the very name of Christ we must be on our guard against heretics,
and all that understand amiss and love this world, that we may not be deceived,
and therefore He says, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord,
Lord."
But it may fairly
create a difficulty how this is to be reconciled with that of the Apostle,
"No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." [1
Cor 12: 3] For we cannot say that those who are not to enter into the kingdom
of heaven have the Holy Spirit. But the Apostle uses the word 'say,' to express
the will and understanding of him that says it. He only properly says a thing,
who by the sound of his voice expresses his will and purpose. But the Lord uses
the word in its ordinary sense, for he seems to say who neither wishes nor
understands what he says.
St. Jerome: For
Scripture uses to take words for deeds; according to which the Apostle
declares, "They make confession that they know God, but in works deny
him." [Titus 1: 16]
(Ambrosiaster
Comm.) (From a commentary formerly thought to be from Saint Ambrose - JG) in 1
Cor 12: 3: For all truth by whomsoever uttered is from the Holy Spirit.
St. Augustine:
Let us not therefore think that this belongs to those fruits of which He had
spoken above, when one says to our Lord, "Lord, Lord;" and thence
seems to us to be a good tree; the true fruit spoken of is to do the will of
God; whence it follows, "But who doeth the will of my Father which is in
heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven."
St. Hilary: For
obeying God's will and not calling on His name, shall find the way to the
heavenly kingdom.
Pseudo-Chrysostom:
And what the will of God is the Lord Himself teaches, "This is," He
says, "the will of him that sent Me, that every man that seeth the Son and
believeth on him should have eternal life." [John 6: 40] The word believe
has reference both to confession and conduct. He then who does not confess
Christ, or does not walk according to His word, shall not enter into the
kingdom of Heaven.
St. John
Chrysostom: He said not "he that doth" My "will," but
"the will of My Father," for it was fit so to adapt it in the mean
while to their weakness. But the one secretly implied the other, seeing the
will of the Son is no other than the will of the Father.
St. Augustine:
Here it also pertains that we be not deceived by the name of Christ not only in
such as bear the name and do not the deeds, but yet more by certain works and
miracles, such as the Lord wrought because of the unbelieving, but yet warned
us that we should not be deceived by such to suppose that there was invisible
wisdom where was a visible miracle; wherefore He adds, saying, "Many shall
say to Me in that day."
St. John
Chrysostom: See how He thus secretly brings in Himself. Here in the end of His
Sermon He shews Himself as the Judge. The punishment that awaits sinners He had
shewn before, but now only reveals who He is that shall punish, saying,
"Many shall say to Me in that day."
Pseudo-Chrysostom:
When, namely, He shall come in the majesty of His Father; when none shall any
more dare with strife of many words either to defend a lie, or to speak against
the truth, when each man's work shall speak, and his mouth be silent, when none
shall come forward for another, but each shall fear for himself. For in that
judgment the witnesses shall not be flattering men, but Angles speaking the
truth, and the Judge is the righteous Lord; whence He closely images the cry of
men fearful, and in straits, saying, "Lord, Lord." For to call once
is not enough for him who is under the necessity of terror.
St. Hilary: They
even assure themselves of glory for their prophesying in teaching, for their
casting our demons, for their mighty works; and hence promise themselves the
kingdom of Heaven, saying, "Have we not prophesied in Thy name?"
St. John
Chrysostom: But there are that say that they spoke this falsely, and therefore
were not saved. But they would not have dared to say this to the Judge in His
presence. But the very answer and question prove that it was in His presence
that they spoke thus. For having been here wondered at by all for the miracles
which they wrought, and there seeing themselves punished, they say in
wonderment, "Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name?" Others again
say, that they did sinful deeds not while they thus were working miracles, but
at a time later. But if this be so, that very thing which the Lord desired to
prove would not be established, namely, that neither faith nor miracles avail
ought where there is not a good life; as Paul also declares, "If I have
faith that I may remove mountains, but have not charity, I am nothing." [1
Cor 13: 2]
Pseudo-Chrysostom:
But note that He says, "in My name," not in My Spirit; for they
prophesy in the name of Christ, but with the spirit of the Devil; such are the
diviners. But they may be known by this, that the Devil sometimes speaks
falsely, the Holy Spirit never. Howbeit it is permitted to the Devil sometimes
to speak the truth, that he may commend his lying by this his rare truth. Yet
they cast out demons in the name of Christ, though they have the spirit of his
enemy; or rather, they do not cast them out, but seem only to cast them out,
the daemons [demons] acting in concert with them. Also they do mighty works,
that is, miracles, not such as are useful and necessary, but useless and
fruitless.
Augustine: Read
also what things the Magi did in Egypt in withstanding Moses.
St. Jerome:
Otherwise; To prophesy, to work wonders, to cast out daemons by divine power, is often not of his deserts
who performs the works, but either the invocation of Christ's name has this
force; or it is suffered for the condemnation of those that invoke, or for the
benefit of those that see and hear, that however they despise the men who work
the wonders, they may give honour to God. So Saul and Balaam and Caiaphas
prophesied; the sons of Scaeva in the Acts of the Apostles were seen to cast
out daemons; and Judas with the soul of a traitor is related to have wrought
many signs among the other Apostles.
St. John
Chrysostom: For all are not alike fit for all things; these are of pure life,
but have not so great faith; those again have the reverse. Therefore God
converted these by the means of those to the shewing forth much faith; and
those that had faith He called by this unspeakable gift of miracles to a better
life; and to that end gave them this grace in great richness. And they say,
"We have done many mighty works." But because they were ungrateful
towards those who thus honoured them, it follows rightly, "Then will I
confess unto you, I never knew you."
Pseudo-Chrysostom:
For great wrath ought to be preceded by great forbearance, that the sentence of
God may be made more just, and the death of the sinners more merited. God does
not know sinners because they are not worthy that they should be known of God;
not that He altogether is ignorant concerning them, but because He knows them
not for His own. For God knows all men according to nature, but He seems not to
know them for that He loves them not, as they seem not to know God who do not
serve Him worthily.
St. John
Chrysostom: He says to them, "I never knew you," as it were, not at
the day of judgment only, but not even then when ye were working miracles. For
there are many whom He has now in abhorrence, and yet turns away His wrath
before their punishment.
St. Gregory: By
this sentence it is given to us to learn, that among men charity and humility,
and not mighty works, are to be esteemed. Whence also now the Holy Church, if
there be any miracles of heretics, despises them, because she knows that they
have not the mark of holiness. And the proof of holiness is not to work
miracles, but to love our neighbour as ourselves, to think truly of God, and of
our neighbor better than of ourselves.
St. Augustine:
But never let it be said as the Manichees say, that the Lord spoke these things
concerning the holy Prophets; He spoke of those who after the preaching of His
Gospel seem to themselves to speak in His name not knowing what they speak.
St. Hilary: But
thus the hypocrites boasted, as though they spoke somewhat of themselves, and
as though the power of God did not work all these things, being invoked; but
reading has brought them the knowledge of His doctrine, and the name of Christ
casts out the daemons. Out of our own selves then is that blessed eternity to
be earned, and out of ourselves must be put forth something that we may will
that which is good, that we may avoid all evil, and may rather do what He would
have us do, than boast of that to which He enables us. These then He disowns
and banishes for their evil works, saying, "Depart from me, ye that work
iniquity."
St. Jerome: He
says not, Who have worked, but "who work iniquity," that He should
not seem to take away repentance. "Ye," that is, who up to the
present hour when the judgment is come, though ye have not the opportunity, yet
retain the desire of sinning.
Pseudo-Chrysostom:
For death separates the soul from the body, but changes not the purpose of the
heart.
Conclusion
Yes, some Protestants pit faith against good works as if the one is
necessary for salvation and the other is not.
But this is not an “either or” topic but a “both and." When it comes to faith and good works, you
can’t have one without the other for salvation to be possible.
ADDENDUM 12/18/24
To My Readers: I have never added an addendum to a guest posters' work before, but I feel the need to do so. I am so grateful to have John Gregory and Dominic Caggeso as guest posters. They are good Traditionalists and great writers who keep this blog going. I thank God for sending them and I pray for them.
Recently, there has been some rabid Feeneyites commenting on Dominic's last post, and now on John's post. They are also Hitler Fanboys. I never run from controversy and debate. However, there comes a time you must say, "Enough of your blather!" I have answered all their arguments repeatedly and have posted against Feeneyism numerous times. They just repeat the same tired script from Fred and Bobby Dimwit (aka the "Dimond brothers") and show an incapacity for original and critical thinking.
Now, I have received numerous comments calling myself and my guest posters vile names, accusing us of being "secret Jews" (of course), and promoting MHFM. It is not fair to my guest posters or to the 99% of my sane readers with genuine questions, comments or disagreements they would like answered by the poster. I have not and will not publish vile comments and promotions of MHFM.I am cutting off Feeneyite and Hitler Fanboy comments unless the post deals specifically with Feeneyism in the future.
Anyone who wants to read me destroying Bobby Dimond (who actually commented here), please read these two posts:
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2024/02/the-dimonds-ensoulment-and-baptism-of.html
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2024/03/contending-for-faith-part-25.html
God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo
1). Fr. Ephrem Cordova: I’ve received sacraments from this priest. The sermon he gave on Mother Theresa is quite accurate throughout, however , towards the end, he says that he believes, or hopes, that she made a good act of contrition, and made her peace with God, and he will pray for her. You can’t pray for apostates who died as apostates in the external forum. Catholics are only permitted to pray for the faithful departed. Mother Theresa committed horrific sins against The 1st commandment. There is no evidence in the external forum that she repented before death. Mother Theresa was a wicked idolater and apostate. She was not Catholic. It is Catholic teaching that all heretics, and people who die in a state of public mortal sin and who are unrepentant, along with all Non-Catholics go to Hell. There must be evidence of a true conversion in the external forum before their death, otherwise Catholics are to regard these people condemned to eternal perdition and that they died as they lived. This is True Church teaching. Of course, the modernists have spread the error that it’s a duty and an act of love to pray for unrepentant sinners who died in this state. You can pray for the wicked when they are alive. Catholics must pray for the conversion of sinners while they are alive. But after their death, Catholics are not permitted to pray for them. The sentence has been passed and praying for those condemned to Hell, is a way of denying The Infinite Justice of God. I think most who call themselves traditional Catholic understand that it’s not good enough to be a “nice” person. To be saved one needs Supernatural Love of God, and not just Faith and a belief that God exists as merciful and just, they need THE CATHOLIC FAITH. There is no mysterious internal forum revelation at or after death where people are given one last opportunity to choose Heaven or Hell. This is what a person’s life was for, to find and live by God’s Law and Eternal Truth and it’s just a fact that so many are not part of the elect. If they are of good will God brings them out of their darkness, and they are given the graces to convert before death. And God being all knowing can read the hearts of men, and He knows who is of bad will, and they are left in their darkness after the graces given are rejected or as a punishment for their sins. But sentimentality and modernism tell you that it’s fine to pray for the wicked who have died. You can’t pray for Mother Theresa, Martin Luther, John Lennon, Gandhi, etc.
ReplyDelete@anon3:10
DeleteYou Fenneyites are so easy to spot. You parrot the same regurgitated falsehoods from Fred and Bobby Dimwit. You even lifted straight from their script.
In their article Catholics May Not Pray For Deceased Non-Catholics, Fred and Bobby contort Church teaching. They begin with this general statement:
It’s a dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. All who die as non-Catholics go to Hell. Therefore, prayers may not be offered for people who die as non-Catholics. If a person was a non-Catholic or a heretic during life, unless there is evidence of a conversion to the true faith in the external forum, the person is considered to have died as he or she lived (i.e. as a non-Catholic and outside the Church). Therefore prayers may not be offered for a person who, based on the last available evidence, was a non-Catholic or a heretic on the hope that there was a conversion in that person’s final days. Prayers may only be offered for people who die with the true faith. Here are some quotes that reiterate the Church’s teaching that Catholics may not pray for (or consider among the faithful departed) those who die as non-Catholics or without the true faith. (See http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/catholics-may-not-pray-deceased-non-catholics/#.WYvioNQrKt_).
It is true that there is no salvation outside the One True Church and all non-Traditionalist Catholics who die as such go to Hell. The rest is woefully wrong. They claim that unless there is evidence that the person converted, prayers may not be offered in the hope that there was a conversion in the person's final days.
This is exactly your adopted position. Let's see directly below what the CHURCH teaches:
1. 1917 Code of Canon Law
Canon 1240 speaks to the types of persons to be denied ecclesiastical burial. They include Masons, excommunicates, those who committed suicide, those who live as public and notorious sinners, etc. However, Canon 1241 says a person deprived of Christian burial "shall also be denied any funeral Mass, even an anniversary Mass, as well as all other public funeral services. Priests may say Mass privately for him and the faithful may pray for him. (See canonists Abbo and Hannon, The Sacred Canons, 2: 495-497). Obviously, the Church does not give up hope in a last minute repentance/conversion, but Fred and Bobby do.
2. Theologian O'Connell
"So far as the dead are concerned, the Exequial Mass and Anniversary Mass (or other public funeral offices)may not be offered for a person to whom ecclesiastical burial had been denied...It is not, however, forbidden to offer a Mass privately for such persons." (See The Celebration of Mass, The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee [1941], pg. 45).
3. Theologian Szal
"But if he [a schismatic] GAVE NO SIGNS OF REPENTENCE, then Mass can still be said for him, but only privately and in the absence of scandal." (See The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA Press, [1948], pg. 181; Emphasis mine). This DIRECTLY refutes the Dimwit Brothers.
See my reply to your (Fred and Bobby's) quotes below the comment where you wrote them.
---Introibo
So the NO deceived are all condemned? A sede priest said many may be saved by invincible ignorance. I cannot find anything online that sedes have written regarding the NO deceived and invincible ignorance? I can certainly see many who choose ignorance, don't study etc.and the NO is a false religion so...I guess it does not look good for our family and friends who have died while in the Novus Ordo?
DeleteIntroibo I love your comment Dimwit re the Dimonds. Why do folk follow them on their rejection of BOD/BOB. No one knows who will be saved. They set themselves as the judge,woe to them
DeleteGod bless
Peter
Australia
The link to sermon re Mother Teresa does not work nor could I find online. Sadly, she has also been associated with child trafficking and the Epstein /Maxwell clan.
Delete@anon1:30
DeleteThe V2 sect are a non-Catholic religion. In the early days of the Great Apostasy, I’m confident God did not treat them as non-Catholics because it was so confusing and they wanted to be Catholic.
Now, with so many years past, there’s a duty to investigate. Those who do will find the True Church. Those who don’t will stand condemned. Hence, the need to proselytize the V2 sect.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
@anon3:14
DeleteYes, Fred and Bobby have earned the disparaging moniker Dimwit. I really wonder if they believe their own nonsense, or if it is a matter of convenience. Spreading heresy keeps them in donations so they never had to work a real job.
Their followers are like cult members who parrot whatever they say without critical thinking. God bless those who, with the grace of God, saw their way out.
Feeneyites, as my friend Steve Speray said, have “a sickness of soul.”
God Bless,
—-Introibo
The O’Connell/Szal quotes and the 1917 Code of Canon Law are all you have to refute the dogmatic point that Catholics must no pray for deceased Non-Catholics? This attempt fails miserably. This is very typical of you to use fallible sources, and yes, the 1917 code of Canon law is fallible. Also, “approved theologians” from the 1940s and 1950s, are the same people who brought us V2. Why don’t you listen to the “approved theologians” who tell you what V2 means sine you follow the pseudo magisterium of fallible men? It’s a good thing the “approved theologians” and heretical bishops weren’t followed during The Arian Heresy that was so widespread at the time, just like the BOD error is today. Back to O’Connnell/Szal quotes. Pope Gregory XVI totally contradicts this modernist teaching about praying for deceased Non-Catholics in Officium, Feb. 16th 1842. He wrote it to rebuke a bishop in Bavaria who offered Catholic burial rites to a Protestant Bavarian Queen. In this letter Pope Gregory XVI write: “But hardly are we able to express in words what kind of mental anguish we experienced when we learned from the reading of the same [letter] that you had commanded that those public supplications which have been instituted by The Church for all who die in Christian and Catholic fellowship should be held on this occasion for a woman ruler who met her ultimate end in the same heresy wherein she had most manifestly lived. Nor has it any bearing on the matter whether in the final moments of her life she may have been enlightened to repentance by a hidden benefit of the merciful God”. He goes onto say that the exterior judgement of ecclesiastical authority is what matters and that’s why it’s forbidden to offer Catholic burial rites, going back to ancient times, for deceased Non-Catholics, and even catechumens. This is the ancient tradition. These teachings also appear in Medieval Canon Law. But what about private prayer? Well, here’s your answer, a total refutation of your false position. Pope Gregory XVI says in that same letter: “And yet it was not enough for you to prescribe Catholic rites on this occasion; NO, YOU EVEN COMMANDED THAT IN HIS FUNERAL EULOGY FOR THE DECEASED THE SACRED SPEAKER SHOULD SPECIFICALLY COMMEND HER TO THE PIOUS PRAYERS OF THE FAITHFUL.” This great Pope totally disapproves of private prayer for deceased Non-Catholics by the faithful. Why would public prayer be condemned and private prayer be fine? Both types of prayer would be a denial of The Salvation Dogma and it is why both types of prayer are forbidden.
Delete@Feeneyite/Dimwit-ite
Delete"All I've got"? LOL! So you believe the Church can teach error and heresy to Her children through Canon Law and still be the sure guide to salvation? How does that work? If Bergoglio teaches error, it's proof he's not pope (true).
Yet Popes Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII can promulgate and uphold a heretical Universal Disciplinary Law and still be popes! How's that possible?
First, it is established that the Church is infallible in Her universal disciplinary laws such as the 1917 Code of Canon Law.
Proof: According to theologian Van Noort, "The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church...By the term "general discipline of the Church" are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living." (See Dogmatic Theology, 2: 114-115).
According to theologian Herrmann:
"The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments…. If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible."
(Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, p. 258)
Pope Gregory XVI teaches: "[T]he discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced." (See Mirari Vos, para. #9).
Feeneyites will make two objections: (1) The Code is not universal since it only applies to the Latin Rite and not the Eastern Rites, and (2) Canon 1 "proves" it's not universal.
In response to the first objection, it is sheer ignorance of Canon Law. According to the eminent canonist Buscaren: A general [universal] law is one which is not limited to a particular territory; it is a universal law of the Church. This does not mean it is binding on all Catholics. It may be enacted for a special class of persons, or for certain particular circumstances. (See Canon Law: A Text and Commentary [1951], pg. 27). Therefore, "universality" means "pertaining to all members of a Rite throughout the world," and not just in a particular territory. The 1917 Code is therefore universal.
In response to the second objection, Canon 1 does state that the Code as a general rule does not affect the Oriental Church (i.e., Eastern Rites). However, as Buscaren explains, there are some matters in which it [the 1917 Code] affects also the Oriental Church and Oriental Catholics. He enumerates three categories that apply to all Rites: (1) Canons which express dogmatic truths; (2) Canons which declare Divine Law; and (3) Canons which expressly and explicitly mention the Oriental Rites. (See Ibid, pg. 16).
Since Canon Law is pronouncing on a dogmatic fact (when and how prayers can be offered for the dead), it is infallible)
That's ALL I NEED!!
CONTINUED BELOW
To answer your other drivel:
DeleteYou write: "Also, “approved theologians” from the 1940s and 1950s, are the same people who brought us V2. Why don’t you listen to the “approved theologians” who tell you what V2 means sine you follow the pseudo magisterium of fallible men?"
1. The theologians who gave us V2 were NOT approved! They had been CENSURED by the Magisterium, and it was RONCALLI who rehabilitated them.
2. Although the assistance of the Holy Ghost is not directly promised to theologians, nevertheless the assistance promised to the Church requires that He should prevent them as a body from falling into error; otherwise the Faithful who follow them would all be lead astray. The consent of the theologians implies the consent of the Episcopate, according to St. Augustine's dictum, "Not to resist an error is to approve of it---not to defend a truth is to reject it.'" (Scheeben, A Manual of Catholic Theology 1:83).
You write: But what about private prayer? Well, here’s your answer, a total refutation of your false position. Pope Gregory XVI says in that same letter: “And yet it was not enough for you to prescribe Catholic rites on this occasion; NO, YOU EVEN COMMANDED THAT IN HIS FUNERAL EULOGY FOR THE DECEASED THE SACRED SPEAKER SHOULD SPECIFICALLY COMMEND HER TO THE PIOUS PRAYERS OF THE FAITHFUL.” This great Pope totally disapproves of private prayer for deceased Non-Catholics by the faithful. Why would public prayer be condemned and private prayer be fine?
Reply: The prayers of the faithful are often recited PUBLICLY BEFORE THE SERMON AT MASS.
But, who cares what Pope Gregory said WHEN IT'S NOT INFALLIBLE, right?? In Feeneyland, you only need to follow ex cathedra pronouncements, and this isn't one of them. I'll throw back at you exactly what you wrote to me, "This is very typical of you to use fallible sources..."
Game. Set. Match.
---Introibo
@Feeneyite
DeleteFinally, Why would public prayer be condemned and private prayer be fine? Answer: Because in the external forum, we must not presume salvation, it would appear to be teaching universalism, which is scandalous. In private, we can hope God reached them before death. This would include the possibility of being saved by BOD which Fred and Bobby Dimwit reject. Hence, they must further pervert Church teaching and claim that the external forum MUST REFLECT WHAT ACTUAL HAPPENS IN THE INTERNAL FORUM---and THAT'S NOT CHURCH TEACHING!
Over and out,
---Introibo
So far you haven’t used one infallible source. I’ve quoted Pope Gregory II (ex cathedra), Pope Gregory XVI Officium not infallible, but it carries infinitely more weight than modernists writing indifferentist hogwash in the 1950s, that you are so inclined to use to prove your points. It doesn’t prove anything.
DeleteHere’s an infallible Papal teaching:
Pope Martin V, Inter Cunctas, 1418
“Moreover, we….decree that if anyone…should be found of ill repute or suspicion…of the doctrine of the aforementioned pestilential heresiarchs John Wycliffe, John Hus, and Jerome Prague, either by supporting, receiving, or defending the aforementioned condemned men of their perfidious followers and pseudo disciples, while they lived among men, or by believing their errors, by praying for them when dead or for any of their part after death…”
So far I’ve provided at least two infallible sources and Church Tradition backs up these points up as well. You’ve reverted to the usually contumely and fallible sources.
Pope Gregory XVI clearly says the Church goes by the external forum in Officium and rejects the notion that an internal grace to repentance before would allow for Catholic burial rites or prayers from The Faithful. It’s patently false that one can be a Protestant and Catholic at the same time.
Delete@Feeneyite1:04
DeleteThe Code of Canon Law is infallible as I've demonstrated. It is also infallible by the UOM since all theologians after Vatican Council of 1870 agree that private prayer and Masses may be offered in private for those who died as outside the Church in the external forum.
Your citation proves nothing. Yes, you can't pray for them publicly. There is nothing there about private prayer.
---Introibo
@Feeneyite1:13
DeleteHe clearly rejects the external forum for such prayers, yes. Besides, as Feeneyites would say, "IT'S NOT INFALLIBLE." Funny how that doesn't apply to your non-infallible statements!
---Introibo
2). Here are some quotes to support this teaching:
ReplyDeletePope St. Gregory the Great, Moralia, Book 34: “There is, therefore, the same reason for not praying then for men condemned to eternal fire, as there is now for not praying for the devil and his angels who have been consigned to eternal punishment. And this is now the reason for holy men not praying for unbelieving and ungodly men who are dead; for they are unwilling that the merit of their prayer should be set aside, in that presence of the righteous Judge, in behalf of those whom they know to be already consigned to eternal punishment.”
Saint Thomas Aquinas stresses this teaching from Pope Gregory The Great:
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, “Gregory says (Moralia xxxiv): There is the same reason for not praying then (namely after the judgment day) for men condemned to everlasting fire, as there is now for not praying for the devil and his angels who are sentenced to eternal punishment, and for this reason the saints do not pray for dead unbelieving and wicked men, because, forsooth, knowing them to be already condemned to eternal punishment, they shrink from pleading for them by the merit of their prayers..."
Pope St. Gregory II (8th century): “You ask for advice on the lawfulness of making offerings for the dead. The teaching of the Church is this – that every man should make offerings for those who died as true Christians (Catholics)….But he is not allowed to do so for those who die in a state of sin even if they were Christians.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, the words of Saint Augustine…
“If a man depart this life without the faith that works by charity and its sacraments, in vain do his friends have recourse to such acts of kindness [prayers and suffrages for him].’ Now all the damned come under that head. Therefore suffrages profit them not.”
I am a different person from Amon 3:10/19.
DeleteFrom what I know, a public apostate should not be prayed for publicly, but can be prayed for privately. Even Private Mass.
@Feeneyite continued
DeleteThere's an old aphorism, "A proof-text without context is a pretext." If you take something out of the context in which it was written and hold it up as "proof" for a preconceived notion, you're not interested in the Truth, just validating your point; "My mind is made up, so don't bother me with the facts." This is the hallmark of Fred and Bobby Dimond and their fellow Feeneyite followers.
What proof did the Dimond brothers give for claiming Catholics can't pray for deceased non-Catholics? A quote from St. Thomas Aquinas, "St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Suppl. Q. 71, A. 5. “Gregory says (Moralia xxxiv): There is the same reason for not praying then (namely after the judgment day) for men condemned to everlasting fire, as there is now for not praying for the devil and his angels who are sentenced to eternal punishment, and for this reason the saints do not pray for dead unbelieving and wicked men, because, forsooth, knowing them to be already condemned to eternal punishment, they shrink from pleading for them by the merit of their prayers…” Yes, THE SAINTS do not pray for dead and unbelieving men because they know for certain who they are, and we do not (except for Judas Iscariot, for the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches, "...but the priesthood brings to them [i.e., evil clerics] in its train the same rewards the Apostleship brought to Judas--eternal perdition." pg. 213).
The other quotes from, e.g., Pope Gregory the Great, clearly mean prayers are not offered for non-Catholics publicly, because no one but God knows what happens between Him and a soul prior to death except by special revelation. We know the canonized saints are in Heaven; that is an infallible decree. We know Judas is in Hell. For everyone else, we may hope they were saved by God in the last moments of life, being brought into the Church infused with faith and sanctifying grace, because nothing is impossible with God. Prayers said for them, if they did not convert, are not "wasted;" they will be used by God for another poor soul--the same as prayers for someone whom is now (unknown to us) in Heaven are never "wasted."
---Introibo
What of retroactive prayer
Delete@anon1:50
DeletePlease clarify “retroactive prayer.”
—-Introibo
You sound like The Novus Ordo cleric Robert Barron who believes Hell might be empty. You hope that everyone besides Judas was saved, implying it could have happened that way, and therefore only one person might be in Hell. This contradicts scripture.
DeleteMatthew 7:13- “Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life, and few there are that find it.”
Luke 13:24- “Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I say to you, shall seek to enter, and shall not be able.”
The reason Saints don’t pray for dead Non-Catholics is because they know these people died in their sin. The same way all true Catholics know Christopher Hitchens, Genghis Khan, Bernie Madoff and countless others are in Hell. We know that from the external forum. Also Saint Frances Xavier never spoke about a revelation he had knowing the state of a man’s soul yet he said:
St. Francis Xavier, Nov. 5, 1549: “The corsair who commanded our vessel died here at Cagoxima. He did his work for us, on the whole, as we wished… He himself chose to die in his own superstitions; he did not even leave us the power of rewarding him by that kindness which we can after death do to other friends who die in the profession of the Christian faith, in commending their souls to God, since the poor fellow by his own hand cast his soul into hell, where there is no redemption.”
Never mentions a special revelation knowing this man’s soul. He knows the man was condemned because of his sins of superstition. He knew this man went there strictly from the external forum, and all true Catholics know this. I don’t need to guess about whether Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Robespierre are in Hell. You don’t know what you are talking about.
Let’s say I pray that John Lennon had a deathbed conversion
DeleteIntroibo, we can also know that the false prophet and antichrist will be in hell too right. That’s 3 humans who certainly will be/have been damned and not convert and repent
Delete@Feeneyite9:33
DeleteThe majority of theologians teach most are damned. The Bible quotes support this but in no way rule out the rare miracle of BOD. The fact that St. Francis Xavier didn't mention a special revelation doesn't mean he didn't have one. As a Feeneyite what do you care about St. Francis Xavier/ "He's not infallible" LOL
---Introibo
Saint Frances Xavier and other Saints can be quoted when they support infallible papal teachings. I gave you two infallible Papal teachings in this matter. Pope Martin V and Pope Gregory III. Still waiting for one of your infallible sources debunking the true positions on this issue. Don’t give us modernist canonists and fake theologians from 1959. No true Catholic cares what they say if it contradicts church teaching. Also, constant and universal teachings of Saints rise to the level of infallibility. BoD was not taught by early church fathers, and no theologian doctor ever taught Jews who reject Christ could be saved, you can feverishly produce all the quotes of modernists wearing cassocks you want, but you have zilch.
DeleteBoD was never definitively defined anywhere. It was fallibly theorized in a period or two and really took hold in the 19th century when modernism was rampant, and it became modernist “dogma” , which is NO dogma at all, when your hero Richard Cushing devised a plot to attack the infallible magisterium on Salvation. Why wasn’t the Summa condemned by any Pope for teaching error? But was instead circulated in seminaries all over. It’s because not everything in every Catechism or theological manual or book is infallible. No wonder why you’re not a teacher anymore and chose a profession where lying is an art form. This basic points are quite difficult for you to grasp.
Delete@Feeneyite
DeleteWrong again!
You write: “BoD was never definitively defined anywhere. It was fallibly theorized in a period or two and really took hold in the 19th century…”
Reply: Ironically, the Extraordinary Magisterium did define BOD and BOB at the Council of Trent. On the "Sacraments in General:"
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, OR WITHOUT THE DESIRE THEREOF, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema. (Emphasis mine)
From the Decree on Justification:
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, OR THE DESIRE THEREOF as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. (Emphasis mine)
How do we know what these passages mean? The unanimous consent of all theologians and the Catechism of the Council of Trent tell us so. You think this ends it? For a reasonable person, it would. However, Fred and Bobby know best!
But wait, there’s more!
Continued Below
In Trent's Decree on Penance and Extreme Unction, we read:
DeleteThe Synod [Trent] teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament [Penance] be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein.
We have a teaching on "Penance by desire." Later, the Decree states,
This Sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated.
The Council of Trent says here that the sacrament of penance is necessary for the salvation of those who have fallen after baptism, as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated. However, it is very clear that Trent admits that a man can receive the effect of the sacrament of Penance by desire, before actually receiving the sacrament itself.
Thus, if one wishes to hold that baptism by water is necessary in such a way that the effect of baptism cannot be received before the sacrament itself, one must also hold that the same thing is true of Penance. Otherwise, it would not be true that the sacrament of penance is necessary after sinning just as the sacrament of baptism before being baptized.
You write: “Why wasn’t the Summa condemned by any Pope for teaching error? But was instead circulated in seminaries all over. “
Reply: Because the Immaculate Conception was up for theological debate in the 13th century and was KEPT TO SHOW THE HISTORICAL THINKING AND DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE AT THAT TIME. Many copies of the Summa (including mine) have an “erratum” which states the teaching of Aquinas is not the teaching of the Church. Pope Pius IX defined the Immaculate Conception in 1854. Seminarians are NOT taught what Aquinas taught as truth but as HISTORY. Seminarians ARE taught BOD and BOB are OF FAITH. Catechisms are meant to teach the Faith to the laity, not so the Summa which is for advanced theology. If you can’t understand THAT basic distinction, it’s no wonder you’re a Feeneyite!
---Introibo
@Feeneyite7:22
DeleteThe Code of Canon Law is infallible and I explained both how and why. The fact that you don't accept Church teaching is why you are a Feeneyite in the first place.
The UOM teaches BOD and BOB going back to just after Trent, hardly "1959 theologians" LOL!
You write: "Also, constant and universal teachings of Saints rise to the level of infallibility."
Really? Saints NOT theologians?? CITATION PLEASE!
You write: " BoD was not taught by early church fathers"
You reject Baptism of Blood too. Here are Church Fathers on BOB:
St. John Chrvsostom writes:
"Do not be surprised that I refer to martyrdom as baptism; for here too the spirit blows with much fruitfulness, and a marvellous and astonishing remission of sins and cleansing of the soul is effected;..."
St. Basil the Great:
"And ere now there have been some who in their championship of true religion have undergone the death for Christ's sake, not in mere similitude, but in actual fact, and so have needed none of the outward signs of water for their salvation, because they were baptized in their own blood." (Treatise De Spiritu Sancto, Chap. XV)
Do you believe in BOB? There are other Fathers I can cite too!!
---Introibo
John 3:5 is literal and dogmatically defined, you have turned it into a metaphor
DeletePope Paul III, Council of Trent, Canon 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism: “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account should distort those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5] into some metaphor: let him be anathema.”
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: “By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death... so that in them there may be washed away by regeneration, what they have contracted by generation, ‘For unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ [John 3:5].”
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”
Finito! arrivederci!
@Feeneyite9:40
DeleteThe Feeneyites will cite Trent's second canon on Baptism:
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to SOME SORT OF METAPHOR, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema. (Emphasis mine).
Yes, but context is everything. This canon was formulated by the theologians at Trent to condemn the heresy of the so-called Reformers (principally Martin Luther) who taught that since faith alone saves, if someone doesn't have water to baptize you can substitute it with milk or beer. Trent was defining the matter of the Sacrament of Baptism, not condemning BOD or BOB. St. Alphonsus clearly states such as well as all approved theologians post Trent.
Not going anywhere, but take your heresy to the Dimwit brothers. You really bore me.
---Introibo
@anon12:32
DeleteGod stands outside time, but we exist within time. I don't think praying for John Lennon in 2024 would have an effect in 1980 prior to his murder. He has already gone to judgement. The practice of the Church has never endorsed praying for the conversion of sinners in the past who have died.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I'm always praying for my mother, who is a Novus Ordo apostate. She accepted Vatican 2, and went right along with the program. She is 95. I know talking to her would not do any good. May God have mercy on her soul. I wouldn't be Catholic if she had not passed on the Faith.
ReplyDelete@anon12:10
DeleteDon’t be discouraged and keep praying for your dear mother. She was duped by V2 as were so many others. God knows the hearts of all people and takes this into account. I will pray for her as well, and I ask all my readers to do the same.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteThank you so much for your words about not being discouraged, and for the prayers for my mother, and asking your readers to do the same. It is a great consolation. God Bless you and all your readers!
@anon9:10
DeleteWe Traditionalists must support one another, especially as we are so few. Your mother and you will always be remembered in my daily prayers and at Mass.
God Bless, my friend,
---Introibo
At least try to introduce her to a VALID SSPX Priest for Confession and Extreme Unction when the time comes,better than nothing.
DeleteGod bless,
Andrew
John Gregory,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the important post. It was a good warning and reminder of our duty and what we must do to be saved. Exceptional job!
I liked how you quoted the fathers and saints of the Church on how miracles, prophesy, and exorcisms will not save a man but his charity accompanied by his good works within the true unity and bosom of the Catholic Church.
How many "miracles" are claimed today not only those in the Novus Ordo church but in all false religions? How many "prophets of doom" are there? How many who sensationalize being "exorcists" to the point where they write books on spiritual combat and who have a youtube following? Woe until them.
May He (Christ) increase and we decrease and may the baby Jesus bless you and your family this Christmas.
Lee
Thank you my esteemed brother in the Faith. We seem to be rather similar in our views on most everything I think, including sv, the liturgy and in regard to courageous reactions to the "mandates".
DeleteThank you John Gregory for this excellent article.
ReplyDeleteYou are very welcome! Hopefully without sounding stuped. Thank you for thanking me :)
DeleteHell exists, but the world doesn't care and lives in evil, calling it "good". I include myself in this lot, as I also happen to live like a pagan. May this revealed truth, which the V2 sect downplays or outright denies, help us to distance ourselves from evil !
ReplyDeleteSimon,
DeleteI wouldn’t say you live like a pagan. You know the truth and try to live it!
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Ditto!
DeleteHell is what should be one’s greatest fear in this life. The thought of eternal separation from God is so incredibly scary to contemplate. It isn’t disease, war, pain, suffering, death, or any other thing. It is knowing that in the end, we lost everything. Our lives ultimately amounted to nothing. And yet when we look at the world around us today and how dark and sinful this world has become, it is like most of mankind are practically begging God to send them there.
ReplyDeleteHoly Mother Church has endured 2,000 years of horrendous heresies/obstacles such as: Judaism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Modalism, Docetism, Donatism, Iconoclasticism, Islam, Albigensianism, Protestantism, Freemasonry, Naturalism, Communism, Relativism, Modernism, and so much more. It has survived terrible persecutors, tyrants, and thinkers such as Nero, Attila the Hun, Julian the Apostate, Genghis Khan, Luther, Rousseau, Darwin, Marx, Napolean, Gramschi, Nietzsche, Lenin, Sanger, Freud, Hitler, Kinsey, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, and so many more! She survives because She is the Bride of Christ and yet in this age that we live in, people just don’t care anymore. They talk about actually wanting to go to hell because their friends are there and it is hot there. Grace has been so incredibly withdrawn from the world, that people no longer have any sense of reason. They feel like hell is a great place to be. It’s heard all the time on the streets and in conversations. In every other age, people had a moral sense of right and wrong, but in this darkest age of church history, there is no longer a sense of fear of death, judgment, heaven, & hell. In previous ages, heresies and people who were obstacles to the faith were fought back against strongly. There was a moral fiber that united people in the faith. Today, who cares anymore? We have sunk so low!
Even among those claiming to be religious show a complete lack of charity and seem anything but Christian. One such group that keeps resurfacing over and over on this blog (and elsewhere) is the Feeneyites. Fred and Bobby Dimond insult and damn people to hell all the time. The uncharitable and damning tone in which they speak is completely counter-productive to what should be a charitable group of people, if they truly cared about Christ and others. Seriously, who talks like these people?
CONTINUED…The strikes against them are so numerous too!
ReplyDeleteSTRIKE #1: Feeney never held either a Doctorate in Sacred Theology or a Doctorate in Canon Law.
STRIKE #2: Feeney taught serious errors concerning justification and salvation.
STRIKE #3: Feeney established the MICM without ecclesiastical approval.
STRIKE #4: Feeney was in violation of Canon 542 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law regarding married persons being involved in a novitiate.
STRIKE #5: Feeney was in violation of Canon 492, regarding founding a new religious order without ecclesiastical approval.
STRIKE #6: Feeney abused and scarred 39 children for life with his cult.
STRIKE #7: Feeney refused to believe in BOD/BOB which was the consistent teaching of the church (e.g. St. Thomas, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Alphonsus, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III, Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Pope St. Pius X, Pope Benedict XV, the 1917 Code of Canon Law, etc.)
STRIKE #8: Feeney ignored Canons 837 and 1239 about BOD.
STRIKE #9: Feeney was solemnly excommunicated by His Holiness Pope Pius XII for heresy, not disobedience. The Holy Office was involved in this, not the Sacred Congregation for Religious. It was NOT a disciplinary matter; rather a doctrinal one.
STRIKE #10: Feeney’s excommunication is recorded in the AAS #45-100.
The list of strikes goes on and on.
The point is, even for people who claim to care about salvation and the church such as the Dimonds and Feeneyites, all they do is insult, mock, and damn to hell anyone who disagrees with them. No real monks would act like this. It’s bad enough when Holy Mother Church has faced an onslaught of heresies/people throughout the centuries that have attacked Her relentlessly because of Her Teachings. It’s another thing when those claiming to be “inside” the Church continue to attack Her against Scripture, Doctors, Theologians, Popes, Canon Law, EOM, UOM, etc. And then they have the audacity to condemn to hell anyone who disagrees with them! Astounding!
Remember, we know not when we may be called to judgment. It could be at any moment.
Charity covers a multitude of sins (1 Peter 4:8). It would be good for SOME people to remember this, especially as we prepare for the birth of the Incarnate Child into this dark and dreary world.
He is the reason for this season.
Peace and joy to all.
-TradWarrior
Another note about the dimonds. No real monks would be on the internet or have a headset.
DeleteTradWarrior,
DeleteYes!! You're right on the money, my friend!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Very well stated! I like your name. It seems to be quite accurate!!!
DeleteYou display a false charity and don’t have the courage to rebuke people for their false positions and defend the Catholic Faith and its necessity for salvation. You seek human respect and acceptance from your fickle and phony “trad” friends who won’t be there to save you on judgment day. “Feeneyite” is a made up Catholic slur used by Modernists. It’s meaningless and it’s used to attack Catholics who hold the teachings of The Extraordinary Magisterium which were promulgated long before the Cushing/Feeney ordeal. They used Suprema Haec Sacra to attack the dogma taught at Florence and Trent that you need water baptism and The Catholic Faith to be saved.
ReplyDelete@Feeneyite
DeleteTo think: Not ONE pope, not one bishop, not one theologian ever taught that Trent denied BOD---it actually taught BOD and NO ONE found the "mistake"/"heresy" until an excommunicated priest and two Dimwits from New York got it right where all those true popes got it wrong and failed to condemn BOD!!
---Introibo
What do you think of LifeSite News?
ReplyDelete@anon9:27
DeleteThey expose a lot in the V2 sect, but are not sede despite all the evidence reported by them. Sad.A useful resource for news, nevertheless.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Fwiw i have seen them in some articles flirting with the possibility of sedevacantism lately, or at least benevacantism. Do hope and pray they reach the Catholic positions soon.
DeletePersonally,it seems John Henry knows the truth and is slowing allowing his readers to embrace the Sede opinion.
Delete(I could be wrong)
God bless,
Andrew
What do you think of what was suggested before, trying to get somebody to give conditional Baptism, and then going to a chapel that has never seen me, and going to Confession and receiving Communion?
ReplyDelete@anon10:04
DeleteYou would be a true Catholic. I see no problem with it.
---Introibo
Canon 2200.2, 1917 Code: “Positing an external violation of the law, malice in the external forum is presumed until the contrary is proven.”
ReplyDeleteWe must never pray for deceased Non-Catholics.
@anon11:08
DeleteIn the external forum, CONCEDED, in the internal forum, DENIED. malice is "PRESUMED" just as someone accused of a crime is presumed guilty, but MAY BE INNOCENT.
Second, the Canon you cite deals with crimes against Canon Law and Canon Law specifically allows private prayers and Masses for non-Catholics.
Do you understand (or even read) the claptrap you write? (Rhetorical question--no need to reply).
---Introibo
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Q. 71, A. 5: “Further, the text (iv. Sent. D. 45) quotes the words of Augustine (De Verb. Apost. Serm. Xxxii): ‘If a man depart this life without the faith that worketh by charity and its sacraments, in vain do his friends have recourse to such acts of kindness[prayers and suffrages for him].’ Now all the damned come under that head. Therefore suffrages profit them not.”
ReplyDeleteYou conveniently glossed over this important quote in the above post.
@Feeneyite
DeleteYes, all the damned come under that head. Whether or not a particular individual did indeed come under that head, St. Thomas does not say. He does teach BOD. Oh, yes but he was WRONG about that like the Immaculate Conception. He's only right when Fred and Bobby say so!
---Introibo
The binding force that comes from the infallible nature of something, like Vatican I or other dogmatic decrees, is binding on the whole Church in The 1917 Code of Canon Law. By its very dogmatic nature Vatican I is to be believed. The binding force comes from the dogma itself not from The Code. A reference to BoD for catechumens and other novel ideas that you cite found in the code that by their nature don’t have dogmatic status, are not binding. Read Canon 1 and get back to me. Also if The 1917 Code of Canon Law was infallible you wouldn’t have any Sedevacantist congregations or priests right now. Read Canon 111. I don’t agree with this but if you are arguing that the Code is infallible, then all Sedevacantist groups would be illicit. So it would be like cherry picking, which is what you are doing. The Code was mostly disciplinary, with a few references to the Faith, and was not binding on the whole Church. If something in the Code contradicts Divine Law, Dogma. It’s not binding.
ReplyDeleteI realize this exchange isn’t going well for you, but we can hope that you will do some more research and put away your errors.
@Feeneyite
DeleteIt's going VERY WELL. Please get as many peope to come here as possible!! I want them to read how poor Feeneyites understand the Magisterium and Church Teaching!
According to canonists Abbo and Hannon commenting on Canon 1 [See "The Sacred Canons" Volume 1]:
"(b) by way of exception, the Orientals are bound by the laws of the Code:
1. ex ipsa rei natura, when the laws involve matters of Faith (7) or refer to or interpret the Divine or the Natural law (8)"
Footnote #7 gives examples of Canons which involve matters of Faith and bind the Oriental Rites as well as the Latin Rite: "7. E.g., can. 107, 218, 737, 831". (See The Sacred Canons, [1952], 1:5)
What does Canon 737, specifically enumerated by Abbo and Hannon, teach?
Canon 737 states, "Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments, actually or at least in desire, is necessary for all for salvation...".
The canonists teach that: "As Canon 737 notes, men can be saved by the desire of baptism, if it involves a perfect conversion to God through perfect contrition and a love of God above all things. This is a matter of Faith." (Ibid, pgs. 744-745). Therefore, Canon 737, teaches BOD is binding on all Rites, because it is a matter of Faith.
Hence, the real interpretation of Canon 1. Besides, if the Code taught "novel ideas" why would Pope Benedict XV promulgate it? Why didn't Popes Pius XI and XII correct it?
Why is this interpretation in EVERY CANONISTS TEACHING and NEVER Corrected??
According to theologian Herrmann:
"If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from Her divine mission, which would be impossible."
(Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, p. 258)
Therefore, as protected as a secondary object of the Church's infallibility, it means that nothing can be legislated that is "against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful,..."
The consecration of bishops needing a papal mandate can be dispensed in sedevacante or else the law turns noxious and ceases to bind because it would now harm the Church due to changed circumstances. However, there is nothing wrong, evil, or erroneous against requiring a papal mandate, so it was fine when we had a pope.
In the case of BOD and praying for non-Catholics in private (offering Mass as well), it would be evil and erroneous. The Church would be teaching a damned soul should have Masses offered for it in private. That would be the Church giving evil if you were correct, which you are not. The Church would be teaching heresy if BOD were false.
According to Feeneyites, the Church can teach heresy approved by the pope as long as the pope isn't speaking ex cathedra. That is not Church teaching.
So I read Canon 1 and I understand it, unlike you.
I wish I could help you further, but this is John Gregory's post, and I have work to do.
Before I was a lawyer, I was a teacher. Unfortunately for you, I taught science, not special education.
Over and out,
---Introibo
You don’t publish certain comments that totally refute your points.You can’t handle the arguments and are willfully blind. I wouldn’t trust you to teach a kindergartner their ABCs.
Delete@Feeneyite
DeleteCanon 111 is subject to epikeia
@anon4:53
DeleteThe only comments I do not publish are those that contain blasphemy or vile/obscene language. I will also not tolerate comments that disparage my guest posters. You may disagree with them respectfully.
I'm not publishing anything that sings the praises of two uneducated wannabe heretical "brothers" who are lauded as ersatz "saviors." If it weren't so pathetic, It would be funny. Anyone who wants to read their drivel can certainly go there and do so. My blog is not free advertising for them or a Feeneyite hangout.
---Introibo
If one can apply Catholic principles to decide which areas don’t need to be followed in the current situation (The Great Apostasy), one can also apply Catholic principles to identify areas of the Code that go against defined dogma and teachings that carry a greater weight.
Delete@Feeneyite
DeleteThere is a method of applying epikeia. Second, if any part of the Code went against defined dogma, the Church taught heresy in Her official laws. However, that is impossible, as the Church CANNOT give heresy or evil to Her children.
Pope Benedict XV was not protected by the Holy Ghost and could not have been pope. This is what you and the Dimwit brothers believe--a Church that teaches heresy and only infallible ex cathedra teachings need to be believed. The Church has condemned this very idea. Condemned proposition #22 of the Syllabus of Errors, addressed to the whole Church teaches:
22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound is restricted to those matters only which are proposed by the infallible judgement of the Church, to be believed by all as dogmas of the faith.
---Introibo
Introibo:
ReplyDeleteWhat would you do if SSPV made it VERY clear that they were not going to give the sacraments to anybody who acknowledged the validity of the Thuc line?
@anon1:51
DeleteI have no duty to say anything. The rule would be unjust, and I would go to Communion. If I had to sign a declaration, I wouldn't do it and would go elsewhere.
God Bless,
---Introibo
CSPV stopped making their "anti Thuc line" statement before their Sermons.
Delete(At least where I attend the CSPV)
God bless,
Andrew
About the fate of the unborn, unbaptized which some ‘believe will depart Limbo and go to Heaven’ and the impossibility of attaining the Beatific Vision without Baptism:
ReplyDeleteLimbo for eternity seems to be an unsatisfactory, incomplete conclusion; nothing is resolved there. Heaven doesn’t leave loose ends; They didn’t necessarily tell us everything at this time. For our own good, lest we become lax.
Without saying “definitely, it must be so” I would suggest that, after the general Resurrection of the body (and since they never grew up, how might that be resolved ? I have the beginnings of an idea there but not now) they neither attain the Beatific Vision nor remain in Limbo but end up at the ‘new earth’ described in Apocalypse Chapter 21-22.
In the meantime, the members of the Church, in Heaven, have filled the places abandoned by the angels when they fell at the beginning.
It’s either limbo or the fire. Hell is eternal.
Deletethe souls of those dying in actual mortal sin or in original sin alone go down at once (mox) into Hell, to be punished, however, with widely different penalties."
It will be interesting to see what difference the Book of Life (from the foundation of the world) which is the main point of Apocalypse, makes in the Last Judgement. We already know what happens when it is not a factor, since it is yet sealed, with two more to go.
Deleteiirc the ones saved yet cleansed in purgatory after the general resurrection will be the ones populating the new earth, which will be united to heaven, and thus all there in both new earth and heaven will be receiving the beatific vision, as God will fully dwell in both (since Christ after all will return to earth to that effect). The saints, meaning those of heroic virtue, usually canonized, who barely were in purgatory (and in the case of Our Lady and perhaps St John the Baptist due to the Visitation, not at all in purgatory), will be body and soul in heaven. This in line with what Christ said, some will be rewarded tenfold and others a hundredfold. The angels are not the same as humans, therefore the saints will not replace the fallen angels per se. Our Lady in fact already shows us this, She was assumpted body and soul, yet She did not become an angel (altho She did become their Queen).
DeleteThe limbo of the infants is still a part of hell (the outer rim), and as such, they will dwell there in natural bliss but nothing more, no beatific vision. After the general resurrection some might be given more fully formed infant bodies that allow them to feel such natural bliss.
Thank you for that answer, it is very good.
DeleteOne of God’s purposes was to replace the fallen angels, even if the saints are not angels. And more besides.
The new earth and new heaven is not the same as Heaven proper. The New Jerusalem came down out of “heaven from God”.
But those minor points aren’t the issue.
I keep in mind St. John’s admonition in Chapter 22 not to add anything, nor to take anything away.
Your explanation fits those saved of the Ark of Salvation, the Church, perfectly. But the Church is not the Book of Life. They overlap of course.
If there was no Book of Life, your answer would be exactly the same. And that’s what is being left out.
The Baptism, and the Church, is additive.
The Book of Life, “written within and without”(meaning it is full) is subtractive. But as it is Sealed it has no effect, plus or minus, this whole time.
Yet since it is filled, I conclude that the names of every possible descendant of Adam and Eve are written within; but everyone will be judged “according to their works”, and will be blotted out if thus merited. (So it’s not universal salvation).
(So Calvin is wrong; no one is conceived to be destined for hell inevitably).
It’s not so much being ‘saved’ as ‘not being condemned’.
The point is, if the Book of Life did nothing more than what the Church is already doing, what’s its purpose? It may as well not be there - but of course it is there “from the foundation of the world” for a reason.
Do you know what happened to Fr. Denis McGuire who was ordained by the CMRI? He seems to not be listed on the CMRI website anymore.
ReplyDeleteHe is still has a way to be contacted on the cmri website https://cmri.org/cmri-contact-information/contact-fr-denis-mcguire/ maybe he was accidentally deleted off the listing though.
Delete@anon5:36
DeleteI do not know. If any of my readers know, please post the information here.
God Bless,
---Introibo
@anon5:36
DeleteA Feeneyite had this to say: "Fr. Denis McGuire was working with Fr. Ephrem Cordova for a little while after he got ordained, but he hasn’t been seen or heard from in quite some time. I’m not aware of The CMRI making any public comments either on this particular priest and his current status with the CMRI."
Take it for what it's worth. I didn't publish the comment as all he did was make false claims about the CMRI teaching the "heresy" of BOD and NFP.
---Introibo
Is the "consistent ethic of life" thing that Bernardin made up in the 1980s heretical or is it just erroneous
ReplyDeleteBernardin was a novusordist heresiarch and an avowed modernist, don't pay him no mind (as urban youths would say)
Delete@anon9:25
DeleteThe way he stated it was heretical. The death penalty is not wrong in itself, abortion is always wrong in and of itself. To equate the two like that is heretical.
God Bless,
---Introibo
That makes sense. Reading his explication of it I noticed also that he never refers to Traditional Catholic theology to back up his principles and the whole thing just reeked of naturalism ("We must protect human life because human rights demands it"). Yikes.
DeleteDid Father DePauw ever say anything about Feeneyism?
ReplyDelete@anon5:58
DeleteYes. As a young Traditionalist, there was a Chapel member who was disseminating literature written by Fr. James Wathen who had fallen into the Feeneyite heresy. Not knowing what to make of it, I went to Fr. DePauw, who had a private talk with the man a few days later, and he never gave out anymore such literature or talk about it.
I followed up by asking Father, "Must we believe in Baptism of Desire? That literature confused me."
Fr. replied, "Absolutely we must believe in Baptism of Desire. Leonard Feeney was an excommunicated priest who was completely wrong. Any so-called, self-anointed theologian who denies Baptism of Desire had better stop calling himself Catholic!"
Pretty clear and concise!
God Bless,
---Introibo
It is very trying when dealing with Feeneyites because they do not care what the Catholic Church teaches. They act as if they were judge, jury, & executioner. A saint like St. Alphonsus said something wrong (to them). It’s an innocent error. But Pope Gregory XVI said that the teachings of St. Alphonsus were free from error. Was Pope Gregory in error too? Why didn’t anyone catch this until Leonard Feeney came along? Or the Dimonds, for that matter? Feeneyites claim there is no duty to obey non-infallible teachings, but the Catholic Church says otherwise. Many popes said that we must submit in intellect and will to non-infallible teachings because they are safely taught (the dogma of indefectibility). A few examples must suffice: Pope Pius IX in ‘Quanta Cura’, para. #5. Pope Pius IX in ‘The Syllabus of Errors’ - condemned proposition #22. Pope Leo XIII in ‘Sapientiae Christianae’, para. #24. Pope Pius XI in ‘Casti Connubii’, para. #104. Pope Pius XII in ‘Humani Generis’, para. #20 and in ‘Magnificate Dominum’. Pope Pius IX in ‘Quanto Conficiamur Moerore’ and Pope Pius XII in his address to midwives clearly taught BOD. Neither were speaking infallibly, yet they cannot give a doctrine contrary to the Catholic faith (again, due to the dogma of indefectibility). If popes cannot teach heresy, and they teach BOD, then BOD is not heresy. It’s that simple. The alternative is that Popes Pius IX and Pius XII were not true popes and even Feeneyites will not dare go there. Pope Pius XII taught that even in his human weakness, the Roman pontiff is still invincible and unshakeable (Ancora Una Volta). He has the Divine protection of The Holy Ghost who assists him. But Feeneyites like to try and square the circle. It makes no sense to reasonable people, but they lack reason.
ReplyDeleteYou can have 10 Feeneyites and they will all argue the same, illogical way. It’s impossible to try and list the 10 of them from the worst to the best. It analogous to trying to list from the greatest to the worst these 10 baseball players: Ty Cobb, Honus Wagner, Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Joe DiMaggio, Roberto Clemente, Hank Aaron, Ted Williams, Tony Gwynn, Willie Mays. Good luck trying!
***Thank God for this wonderful blog. Lee, Joanna from Poland, John Gregory, Dominic, A Simple Man, etc. all have helped to spread the One True Faith. Most of all, thanks to you Introibo for being the glue that holds this all together. You do a wonderful job and you deserve to be commended!
God bless you all.
-TradWarrior
Thank YOU TradWarrior, keep that enthusiasm, pray for perseverance, stay humble and your end may be good :o)
DeleteTradWarrior,
DeleteThank you, my friend!
God Bless,
---Introibo
It’s important to note that not every statement or decision by a pope is infallible. There were papal errors throughout the history of The Church. Before the declaration of papal infallibility at Vatican I, the theologians attending the Council found that at least 40 popes held incorrect theological views. What a person has to understand is that none of these errors were taught from the Chair of St. Peter. Here’s an example of one such error, Pope John XXII held the false view that the just of the Old Testament don’t receive the Beatific Vision until after the General Judgment. There are s few more examples just like this one.
ReplyDelete@Feeneyite
DeleteThe pope can never teach heresy or promote evil.
Your example of John XXXII fails miserably. First, he gave a sermon in which he clearly stated he was teaching as a private theologian, and that he would to submit to correction from the Church. That's a big difference from promulgating a Code of Canon Law upon the whole Church as binding law that contains heresy.
---Introibo
I never said a Pope could teach heresy. Another straw man indeed on your part. I said in a previous comment, that I don’t think you posted, I could be wrong, that Popes can make honest theological errors, be weak on certain points, and enact bad reforms, without being heretics.
Delete@Feeneyite
DeleteYet Feeneyites believe that popes can enact binding legislation upon the Universal Church in Canon Law and Catechisms containing soul-killing heresy. THAT is heretical!
---Introibo
Where would Father DePauw tell people to go to Mass, if they couldn't get to Ave Maria Chapel?
ReplyDelete@anon3:10
DeleteFather would not specify any specific Chapel or Church. Rather he would say, "Go to an unquestionably properly trained and validly ordained Roman Catholic priest, who uses the Traditional Latin Mass and holds on to the unchanging morals and faith as they were taught before Vatican II." He added, "If you find such a priest, be generous in the collection plate to support him, and if you meet him, please tell him I said hello. Any true priest who offers the True Mass and has the One True Faith is my friend in Christ."
God Bless,
---Introibo
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (John 3:5): let him be anathema.”
ReplyDelete@Feeneyite
DeleteCANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
Trent uses the exact same wording in regards to Penance:
CANON VI.--If any one denieth, either that sacramental confession was instituted, or is necessary to salvation, of divine right;...let him be anathema.
Does that mean one who has just been baptized and dies right away will be damned because Penance is "necessary to salvation"? What about baptized babies? What about those who have been baptized, fall into mortal sin, and have never before confessed--can't they be saved by an Act of Perfect Contrition, or "Penance by desire"? Baptism is the instrumental cause of salvation, to use Scholastic terminology. It is that through which we are saved, just as a pen is the instrumental cause of someone writing something down on paper. The principal efficient cause of salvation is Faith and sanctifying grace; the theological virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity.
Therefore, just as a writer can substitute a pencil for a pen (for he is the one who produces the words as principal efficient cause), so too can God substitute another instrumental cause (BOD/BOB) for the Sacrament of Baptism.
---Introibo
Early Church Fathers didn’t believe in BOD:
ReplyDeleteSt. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390-391 A.D.: “You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2: 1330.) St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in Io. 25, 3: “For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful… One has Christ for his King; the other sin and the devil; the food of one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes… Since then we have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion?… Let us then give diligence that we may become citizens of the city above… for if it should come to pass (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.” St. Augustine, 391: “When we shall have come into His [God’s] sight, we shall behold the equity of God’s justice. Then no one will say:… ‘Why was this man led by God’s direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster, and was not baptized?’ Look for rewards, and you will find nothing except punishments.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 1496.)
That’s just a few examples.
@Feeneyite,
DeleteReally?? That the early Church Fathers believed that BOD and/or BOB could substitute for the Sacrament is proven:
St. Ambrose (De obitu Valentiniani consolation, Funeral Oration of the Emperor Valentinian II, 392 AD)
"51. But I hear that you grieve because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism. Tell me: What else is in your power other than the desire, the request? But he even had this desire for a long time, that, when he should come into Italy, he would be initiated, and recently he signified a desire to be baptized by me, and for this reason above all others he thought that I ought to be summoned. Has he not, then, the grace which he desired; has he not the grace which he requested? And because he asked, he received, and therefore is it said: "By whatsoever death the just man shall be overtaken, his soul shall be at rest." (Wisdom 4:7)"
St. John Chrvsostom writes:
"Do not be surprised that I refer to martyrdom as baptism; for here too the spirit blows with much fruitfulness, and a marvellous and astonishing remission of sins and cleansing of the soul is effected;..." (Panegyric on St. Lucianus)
St. Basil the Great:
"And ere now there have been some who in their championship of true religion have undergone the death for Christ's sake, not in mere similitude, but in actual fact, and so have needed none of the outward signs of water for their salvation, because they were baptized in their own blood." (Treatise De Spiritu Sancto, Chap. XV)
St. Augustine:
City of God, BkXIII, Ch. 7:
"Chap.7.- Of the Death Which the Unbaptized Suffer for the Confession of Christ:
For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who said, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, "Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven;" and in another place, "Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it."
That's just a few examples of you being wrong.
---Introibo
DeletePope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino,” Council of Florence, ex cathedra: “No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Less than a dozen of the early Church Fathers believed in BoB out of many. A few of the ones who did, reject BoD.
St. Fulgence, 523: “From that time at which Our Savior said: “If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven,’ no one can, without the sacrament of baptism, except those who, in the Catholic Church, without Baptism pour out their blood for Christ…”
St. Fulgence, 523: “Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that not only men having the use of reason but even infants who… pass from this world without the Sacrament of holy Baptism… are to be punished in the everlasting torment of eternal fire.”
It’s crucial to note that some of the fathers use the term “baptism of blood” in order describe the Catholic martyrdom of a person who has already received the sacrament of baptism. BoB is not a replacement.
St. John Chrysostom, Panegyric on St. Lucian, 4th Century AD:
“Do not be surprised that I call martyrdom a Baptism; for here too the Spirit comes in great haste and there is a taking away of sins and a wonderful and marvelous cleansing of the soul; and just as those being baptized are washed in water, so too those being martyred are washed in their own blood.”
St. John is clearly talking about the martyrdom of a priest St. Lucian. This person was already baptized. St. John Damascene says the same thing.
St. John Damascene:
“These things were well understood by our holy and inspired fathers --- thus they strove, after Holy Baptism, to keep... spotless and undefiled. Whence some of them also thought fit to receive another Baptism: I mean that which is by blood and martyrdom.”
That’ll be all for now. Keep reading. Don’t let your pride get in the way.
@Feeneyite
DeleteYes, you should keep reading, your comprehension skills are very low. I could easily point out how the approved theologians interpreted those passages--not the Dimwit brothers. Nevertheless, read on:
St. Cyril of Jerusalem
If any man receive not Baptism, he hath not salvation; except only Martyrs, who EVEN WITHOUT THE WATER receive the kingdom. For when the Saviour, in redeeming the world by His Cross, was pierced in the side, He shed forth blood and water; that men, living in times of peace, might be baptized in water, and, in times of persecution, in their own blood. For martyrdom also the Saviour is wont to call a baptism, saying, Can ye drink the cup which I drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? (Catechetical Lecture III, On Baptism,)
St. Gregory Nazianzen
Now there is also a fourth kind of baptism [besides the baptism of Moses, of John, and of Jesus], namely that which is acquired by martyrdom and blood, by which Christ Himself was also baptized, and which indeed is more venerable than the others, because it is contaminated by no defilements afterwards.
(Treatise De Spiritu Sancto, Chap. XV)
Eusebius of Caesarea
And of women, Herais died while yet a catechumen, receiving baptism by fire, as Origen himself somewhere says. (The Church History of Eusebius, Book VI, Chapter IV).
Doesn't sound like they were baptized, does it? Also, why would such teachings not be CONDEMNED by other Church Fathers? You will never see, e.g., St. Cyril's writing on BOB condemned by another Church Father.
Have fun with phonics!
Begone, Feeneyites!
---Introibo
Seems to me the short answer is “the Grace of God fills what is lacking” in the normal course of events (i.e. conventional Baptism).
DeleteWhen will the post entitled: “The Sordid History of The CMRI” be posted? Your hypocrisy is blatant.
ReplyDelete@Feeneyite
DeleteFr. Cekada already did so, and better than I could. The CMRI got their act together. Feeneites went from bad (Leonard Feeney) to worse (Fred and Bobby Dimwit).
---Introibo
The Diamond brothers have a video of their "monastery" where they claim to have a consecrated Host from the 1990s(!).
DeleteThe back and forth battle with the Feeneyites is a long and tedious one. Introibo (and others) can continue to quote church fathers and other theologians who (while clearly teaching BOW) teach BOD/BOB from their many theological works. It is obvious that these men strongly believed in BOD/BOB and this was in no way in opposition to BOW. If not, they wouldn’t have written so clearly in favor of BOD/BOB in their numerous writings. It isn’t a matter of not seeing this; rather, it is a matter of CHOOSING NOT to accept this. It is an obstinate will that keeps Feeneyites where they are. And this is very dangerous. Pride always comes before the fall. If one humbly and honestly asks God for guidance, desires to know the Truth, and is willing to have his/her will open to whatever that may be and wherever that may lead, then they WILL arrive at the True position. It’s that simple. God will supply the grace and help to the soul who honestly seeks to know the Truth. “All men by nature desire knowledge”, as Aristotle said. No, this is much more problematic. Feeneyites have no desire to see the Truth. They just want to be right all the time and then insult and damn to hell anyone that doesn’t agree with them. This is not charity. It does not come from a good-hearted person. It does not follow Our Lord’s Sacred Heart and Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart to act in such a manner. There are some people though whose nature it is to remain obstinate and to never change. A simple story illustrates this point.
ReplyDeleteThere was a scorpion and a frog. The scorpion said to the frog, “Frog, let me ride on your back across the river, for I cannot swim.” The frog agreed to carry the scorpion on his back in charity as he swam across the river. When they were halfway across the river to the other side, the scorpion stung the frog. The frog said to the scorpion, “Scorpion, why did you sting me when all I did was offer to help you? Now, we will both die”, to which the scorpion replied, “Because it’s my nature.”
-TradWarrior
Very well stated Trad Warrior.
DeleteMy surname translates to the name of a false God. What do i do
ReplyDelete@anon9:09
DeleteYou need not do anything unless it really bothers you. Retain a lawyer and get your name legally changed, if that is the case.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Henri Greiner wrote a short book on introduction of thomistic philosophy which could be used by laymen. Do you know of any theology equivalents? I’m looking to enter seminary and want a rough grasp on the topics so that it will be easier to understand.
ReplyDeleteGod bless
@anon1:54
DeleteYou can get "Dogmatic Theology for the Laity" by Fr. Premm, available on Amazon, reprinted by TAN Books. Theologian Ott's "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" can't be beat in my opinion. That was the first theology tome I read after meeting Fr. DePauw.
God Bless,
---Introibo
@anon1:54
DeleteI'll be praying for your vocation!!
---Introibo
Thank you,
DeleteI will read these books!
God bless
None of the apologetics manuals I could find touch on Pentecostalism, do you know of any that do?
ReplyDeleteGod bless
@anon2:13
DeleteUnfortunately, no. If I come across something, I will comment here to let you know.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Cornelius Lapide, Suarez and at least half a dozen other Theologians have (speculatively) taught that the souls in Limbo will go to the 'New Earth' after the general judgement. They will never have the beatific vision but it (again speculatively) is possible that the Elect in heaven could visit them on the New Earth.
ReplyDeleteThis is From Lapide's Commentary on Second Peter Chapter 3 verse 13
DeleteHere is a part of it translated.(by google not me)
"The children of the earth, with God's providence, will not feel sorrow for the loss of the heavenly kingdom, because they have not lost it through their own fault: why should we not believe that in the common restoration of the whole world they must be equally perfected in the order of natural goods, so that they may know, love and praise God, and therefore lead a quiet and delightful life? This Lessius confirms, and with many reasons. Which if they are true, what place will be more suitable for these little ones than the earth? Since in it they will be able to see and contemplate the sun, the clouds, the stars, the sea and other created things, and from them to love and praise God."
Speaking of hell how was Dante not put on the index for committing horrible calumnies against the papacy, putting multiple popes in hell for indulgence “simony”.
ReplyDeletebecause it wasn't calumny, why do you think it was?
DeleteCan a catholic beleive that st Thomas aquinas had personal infallibility (like the apostles) , or would that contradict that there is no public revelation after the apostles, or any other dogma
ReplyDelete@anon4:16
DeleteAquinas was not infallible either by nature (like Christ) or by virtue of an office (Apostles, pope). I do believe, along with many approved theologians, that Aquinas was to dogmatic theology what St. Alphonsus was to moral theology, i.e., it admits no error de facto. Correctly understood, he was not wrong on the Immaculate Conception as many seem to think. I may do a post on just that topic.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Is it permitted to believe that Pius xii was the last pope, ever, as in we will not have another pope before the Second Coming of Our Lord? So long as one does not deny we have the means of electing a pope. This is because in part our clergy refuse to believe in the jurisdiction which they have.
ReplyDeleteAlso can one believe that the conversion of the Jews will happen after the coming of the antichrist, it makes more sense as the antichrist is most likely going to be a Jewish rabbi claiming to be a messiah who will fool the Jews for a short while and then they will realise that they had been following Antichrist.
@anon5:32
DeleteIn my opinion, I believe it is possible we will not see a pope to succeed Pope Pius XII. Some theologians do teach the conversion of the Jews will happen after Antichrist takes power.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Once upon a time there was a great number of Catholics who erred gravely on the salvation issue, who quite possibly, due to their vocalness on the issue, were heading toward their own condemnation. These Pharisees of Catholicism held their personal opinions above the infallible teachings of holy mother Church while condemning those who accepted all the Church teaches and understood that teaching as the Church understands it as being liberal and or heretics. The axiom that fit the Pharisees also fit those of the Feeney bent.
ReplyDeleteThe accusers stood accused. But the orthodox Catholics who did not think themselves more qualified that all the Fathers, Docters, Saints, Popes and theologians of the Church instead of being offended for being accused of being heretics by those who erred gravely, decided to pray for all the Pharisaical Feeneyites everyday.
Then one shiny Eureka Eve the Feeneyites began to warm up to the idea that maybe looking to Ambrose, Augustine, Bernard, Saint Thomas, Bellarmine, Alphonsus, Pius IX and Pius XII instead of Feeney and the hateful heretics from Fillmore New York to resolve controversial subjects pertaining to Catholic theology was not such a bad idea after all.
One by one those of the Feeneyite persuasion began to embrace the Catholic teaching on salvation as the prayers of the sound Catholics worked much like all the King's horses and all the King's men restoring the Feeneyites to proper thinking again. Now, Ambrose! Now, Augustine! Now, Bernard, and Aquinas! "On, Bellarmine! On, Alphonsus! On, Pius and Pius! Catholic Church with your infallible and authoritative teachings so bright, won't you guide the Feeneyites into truth this life?
We can hope that once we enter the Christmas of eternity that the finally repentant stubborn, bad-willed, intellectually dishonest, mean-spirited Feeneyites along with all those of good will shall be found rejoicing with us. That will be a great Epiphany!
It’s John Gregory! The John 3:5 mocker. It took you all week for to think up your dull and mindless poetry that mirrors secular songs that were created to mock Christmas. Did the pseudo typology writer help you write that hogwash? You don’t understand infallibility. You are contemptuous of John 3:5, The Council of Florence, The Council of Trent, and The Early Church Fathers. The Dimonds merely point to The Church teaching and The Dogmas as ONCE declared. The interpretation by fallible men of ONCE defined dogmas is irrelevant. There is no deeper meaning than what is declared in The Dogma itself. You resemble the Arians of old. But you’ll find out like The Arians that you’re a liar and will be condemned to eternal perdition if you don’t put away your modernist errors.
ReplyDeleteJohn Gregory has come out of hiding! Not to redeem himself but to continue his shameful mockery of Catholic Dogma. We should have John Gregory and the boxer Speray debate The Dimonds. We know the lawyer isn’t up for that challenge.
ReplyDeleteIntroibo, we have never read such rubbish from these folk the foolish clad who follow the Dimonds . You have taken their rubbish to pieces and they still come back .They must have a mental sickness.
DeleteDon’t play the victim John Gregory, you punch and scream “ouch”, just like your forefathers and current clan of Kabbalists.
ReplyDeleteDon’t pray for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Gregory. She wasn’t saved. That’s infallible!
ReplyDelete@John 3:5 mocker J. Gregory
ReplyDeleteYou don’t believe in Santa and his reindeer too, do you? Santa is a corruption and mockery of Saint Nicholas, and BoD, especially the way it’s believed today, that witch doctors, wahhabists, and rabbinical Jews can be saved IN their false religions is a total corruption and heretical attack on Catholic Dogma. What a horrible heresy !
Do you think the SSPX has Jansenist tendencies?
ReplyDelete